1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. The Dynamics of Political Discourse
  4. Chapter

Introduction

image of Introduction
  • Affiliations: 1: Northeastern Illinois University, USA; 2: Bar-Ilan University, Israel; 3: University of Augsburg, Germany

References

  1. Atifi, Hassan , and Michel Marcoccia
    2012 “Follow-Ups in Online Political Discussions.” InProceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer , Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber , 22–34. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg – [online]. URL: opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/volltexte/2012/7165/;URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-71656.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, John L
    1962/1976 How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, Kent
    1992 “Communicative Intentions, Plan Recognition, and Pragmatics: Comments on Thomason and Littman and Allen.” InIntentions in Communication, ed. by Philip R. Cohen , Jerry Morgan and Martha E. Pollack , 389–400. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berlin, Lawrence N
    2007 “Cooperative Conflict and Evasive Language: The Case of the 9–11 Commission Hearings.” InContext and Appropriateness: Micro Meets Macro, ed. by Anita Fetzer , 176–215. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.162.10ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.162.10ber [Google Scholar]
  5. 2011 “Fighting Words: Hybrid Discourse and Discourse Processes.” InContext and Contexts, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Etsuko Oishi , 41–65. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.209.04ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.209.04ber [Google Scholar]
  6. Bull, Peter
    2015 “Follow-Ups in Broadcast Political Discourse: Speeches, Interviews, and Parliamentary Questions.”InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.01bul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.01bul [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Herbert
    1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  8. Daneš, František
    1974 “Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text.”InPapers on Functional Sentence Perspective, ed. by František Daneš , 106–128. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783111676524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111676524 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ensink, Titus
    2015 “Framing the Queen’s Head Scarf: A Case Study on Follow-Ups in Dutch Politics.” InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.06ens
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.06ens [Google Scholar]
  10. Fetzer, Anita
    2002 “Communicative Intentions in Context.” InRethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Christiane Meierkord , 37–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.103.03fet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.103.03fet [Google Scholar]
  11. 2007 “Challenges in Political Interviews: An Intercultural Analysis.” InPolitical Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Gerda Lauerbach , 163–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.160.10fet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.160.10fet [Google Scholar]
  12. Firbas, Jan
    1974 "Some Aspects of the Chechoslovak Approach to Problems of Functional Sentence Perspective."InPapers on Functional Sentence Perspective, ed.by Františ e Danee (ed.), 11–37. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Harré, Rom , and Luk van Langenhove
    1991 “Varieties of Positioning.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 21 (4): 393–407. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1991.tb00203.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1991.tb00203.x [Google Scholar]
  14. 1999 Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Heritage, John
    1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Labov, William and David Fanshel
    1977 Therapeutic Discourse. Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Linell, Per
    1998 Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction and Context in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2009 Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Mey, Jacob
    2001 Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2011 “Speech Acts in Context.” InContext and Contexts: Parts meet Whole?, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Etskuo Oishi , 171–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.209.11mey
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.209.11mey [Google Scholar]
  21. Mikalayeva, Liudmila
    2015 “Follow-ups in Pre-Structured Communication. A Case of Treaty Monitoring.”InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.09mik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.09mik [Google Scholar]
  22. Sauer, Christoph
    2015 “Follow-Ups in Political Talk Shows and their Visual Framing.” InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.07sau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.07sau [Google Scholar]
  23. Sbisà, Marina
    1992 “Speech Acts, Effects and Responses.” In(On) Searle on Conversation, ed. by John R. Searle , Hermann Parret and Jef Verschueren , 101–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.21.06sbi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.06sbi [Google Scholar]
  24. 2002a “Cognition and Narrativity in Speech Act Sequences.” InRethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics meets Conversational Interaction, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Christiane Meierkord , 71–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.103.04sbi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.103.04sbi [Google Scholar]
  25. 2002b “Speech Acts in Context.” Language and Communication22(4): 421–436. doi: 10.1016/S0271‑5309(02)00018‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00018-6 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schaeffener, Christina
    2015 “Follow-Ups in Interpreter-Mediated Interviews and Press Conferences.”InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.08sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.08sch [Google Scholar]
  27. Searle, John R
    1969 Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1992 “Conversation Revisited.” In(On) Searle on Conversation, ed. by John R. Searle , Hermann Parret and Jef Verschueren , 137–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.21.09sea
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.09sea [Google Scholar]
  29. Sinclair, John and Malcolm Coulthard
    1975 Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Van Dijk, Teun
    1980 Macrostructures. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Weizman, Elda
    2012 “Negotiating Irony through Follow-Ups: Readers’ Comments on Op-Eds in the Daily Press.” InProceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer , Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber , 263–276. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg – [online]. URL: opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/volltexte/2012/7165/;URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-71656.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Atifi, Hassan , and Michel Marcoccia
    2012 “Follow-Ups in Online Political Discussions.” InProceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer , Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber , 22–34. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg – [online]. URL: opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/volltexte/2012/7165/;URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-71656.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, John L
    1962/1976 How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, Kent
    1992 “Communicative Intentions, Plan Recognition, and Pragmatics: Comments on Thomason and Littman and Allen.” InIntentions in Communication, ed. by Philip R. Cohen , Jerry Morgan and Martha E. Pollack , 389–400. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berlin, Lawrence N
    2007 “Cooperative Conflict and Evasive Language: The Case of the 9–11 Commission Hearings.” InContext and Appropriateness: Micro Meets Macro, ed. by Anita Fetzer , 176–215. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.162.10ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.162.10ber [Google Scholar]
  5. 2011 “Fighting Words: Hybrid Discourse and Discourse Processes.” InContext and Contexts, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Etsuko Oishi , 41–65. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.209.04ber
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.209.04ber [Google Scholar]
  6. Bull, Peter
    2015 “Follow-Ups in Broadcast Political Discourse: Speeches, Interviews, and Parliamentary Questions.”InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.01bul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.01bul [Google Scholar]
  7. Clark, Herbert
    1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  8. Daneš, František
    1974 “Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text.”InPapers on Functional Sentence Perspective, ed. by František Daneš , 106–128. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. doi: 10.1515/9783111676524
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111676524 [Google Scholar]
  9. Ensink, Titus
    2015 “Framing the Queen’s Head Scarf: A Case Study on Follow-Ups in Dutch Politics.” InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.06ens
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.06ens [Google Scholar]
  10. Fetzer, Anita
    2002 “Communicative Intentions in Context.” InRethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Christiane Meierkord , 37–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.103.03fet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.103.03fet [Google Scholar]
  11. 2007 “Challenges in Political Interviews: An Intercultural Analysis.” InPolitical Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Gerda Lauerbach , 163–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.160.10fet
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.160.10fet [Google Scholar]
  12. Firbas, Jan
    1974 "Some Aspects of the Chechoslovak Approach to Problems of Functional Sentence Perspective."InPapers on Functional Sentence Perspective, ed.by Františ e Danee (ed.), 11–37. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Harré, Rom , and Luk van Langenhove
    1991 “Varieties of Positioning.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 21 (4): 393–407. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑5914.1991.tb00203.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1991.tb00203.x [Google Scholar]
  14. 1999 Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Heritage, John
    1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Labov, William and David Fanshel
    1977 Therapeutic Discourse. Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Linell, Per
    1998 Approaching Dialogue. Talk, Interaction and Context in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/impact.3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.3 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2009 Rethinking Language, Mind and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Mey, Jacob
    2001 Pragmatics. An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 2011 “Speech Acts in Context.” InContext and Contexts: Parts meet Whole?, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Etskuo Oishi , 171–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.209.11mey
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.209.11mey [Google Scholar]
  21. Mikalayeva, Liudmila
    2015 “Follow-ups in Pre-Structured Communication. A Case of Treaty Monitoring.”InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.09mik
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.09mik [Google Scholar]
  22. Sauer, Christoph
    2015 “Follow-Ups in Political Talk Shows and their Visual Framing.” InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.07sau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.07sau [Google Scholar]
  23. Sbisà, Marina
    1992 “Speech Acts, Effects and Responses.” In(On) Searle on Conversation, ed. by John R. Searle , Hermann Parret and Jef Verschueren , 101–111. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.21.06sbi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.06sbi [Google Scholar]
  24. 2002a “Cognition and Narrativity in Speech Act Sequences.” InRethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics meets Conversational Interaction, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Christiane Meierkord , 71–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.103.04sbi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.103.04sbi [Google Scholar]
  25. 2002b “Speech Acts in Context.” Language and Communication22(4): 421–436. doi: 10.1016/S0271‑5309(02)00018‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00018-6 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schaeffener, Christina
    2015 “Follow-Ups in Interpreter-Mediated Interviews and Press Conferences.”InFollow-Ups in Political Discourse, ed. by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.60.08sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.08sch [Google Scholar]
  27. Searle, John R
    1969 Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1992 “Conversation Revisited.” In(On) Searle on Conversation, ed. by John R. Searle , Hermann Parret and Jef Verschueren , 137–147. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.21.09sea
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.09sea [Google Scholar]
  29. Sinclair, John and Malcolm Coulthard
    1975 Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Van Dijk, Teun
    1980 Macrostructures. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Weizman, Elda
    2012 “Negotiating Irony through Follow-Ups: Readers’ Comments on Op-Eds in the Daily Press.” InProceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer , Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber , 263–276. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg – [online]. URL: opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/volltexte/2012/7165/;URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-71656.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027268242-pbns.259.001int
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027268242-pbns.259.001int
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027268242
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error